The 1000 most-visited sites on the web
google.com
google.com
It's easy to attribute the high scores of Live.com, Bing, and MSN to the power of web browser default settings, but Yahoo doesn't make a web browser so people have to consciously choose to go there.
Indeed, Yahoo still have a few holdouts around the world.
Adobe 13, Slideshare 192, Macromedia(!) 199.
And where's Reddit?
Also:
microsoft.com: Software apple.com: Mac OS
Oh really?
As an un-related side note, two of the sites I started have higher traffic (uniques and page views) that some of these sites (when the sites traffic is combined, as they cater to the same audience, I count them as a single site in stats anyway :p) -- awesome :-)
Too small (not enough user): Reddit: https://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile#siteD...
kukinews.com (site number 1000): https://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile#siteD...
And the answer to the inevitable "but reddit has Unique visitors (cookies)'s" is here: http://www.google.com/support/adplanner/bin/answer.py?answer...
This list may be less interesting / useful than you might think. It is tailored toward (non-adult) advertisers, and will be most relevant to them.
There are lots of reasons for this, not least the definition of a "Page View". Most publishers count a page view as anytime a page is served (because they are concerned about keeping the site alive, and load on it), whereas advertisers count it as everytime a page is seen by a human. Notably, this means advertisers exclude search engine bots from their page view counts, while publishers count them. (Although obviously this depends on the publisher and the context they are talking)
It's like seeing a list of the so-called top selling books, and then learning they exclude the Bible, romance novels, westerns, etc. Too funny.
"Keep in mind that the list excludes adult sites, ad networks, domains that don't have publicly visible content or don't load properly, and certain Google sites."
This data is 18 months old but is still directionally correct. http://gigaom.com/2009/07/16/yahoos-number-ones-so-much-more...